GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF RAR MANUSCRIPTS

The purpose of this document is to provide reviewers with a guide for analyzing submitted manuscripts in order to achieve a systematic, objective, and reproducible evaluation.

The reviewers’ evaluation is a fundamental aid to the Editorial Committee’s decision-making process regarding the suitability of the submitted manuscripts for publication.

We remind reviewers to keep in mind the publication guidelines of the Argentine Journal of Radiology: Instructions for Authors

Points to consider when evaluating manuscripts:

1. General information: title of the manuscript, identification of the responsible team and the specific contributions of each member, presentation and abstract, keywords.

2. Originality and contribution to knowledge: general and specific evaluation of the manuscript’s hypothesis or idea, its objectives, and conceptual framework, taking into account its contributions and impact on professional practice within the specialty.

3. Formal aspects: the overall structure and organization of the manuscript will be evaluated; its category according to the journal’s guidelines; length of the text (according to each category); writing style, clarity, and coherence of the text; citations and supplementary material such as illustrations, graphs, tables, and figures.
   In the case of illustrations and figures, their quality is essential, as well as the detailed and precise indication of the described findings.
   Figure legends, accompanying text, and consistency with the presented images must be evaluated.

4. Methodology: for applicable manuscripts, the proposed and used materials and methods will be analyzed, as well as the clarity and level of detail of their description, the results obtained, and their presentation.
   When deemed necessary, support from the RAR team specialized in methodological and statistical analysis will be sought.

5. References: compliance with the guidelines established by the RAR and the relevance of the references used will be evaluated, including their importance to the study objective and their currency.

6. In original articles, the contribution to knowledge and the consistency among the objectives, hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions must be evaluated.

After completing the evaluation, the reviewer must submit to the assigned editor a general recommendation that includes the proposed evaluation structured by item, along with any additional comments or suggestions deemed essential to improve the manuscript for publication.

This recommendation should be organized and structured in such a way that the decision is clearly understood.

We suggest submitting the recommendation with emphasis on the main strengths and weaknesses of the evaluated manuscript.

Suggestions or corrections should be divided into two groups: confidential comments (not sent to the authors) addressed exclusively to the editor, and comments for the authors (always maintaining anonymity).